Navigating the Tower of Babel: The Epistemological Shift of Bioinspired Innovation

Abstract

The disparity between disciplinary approaches to bioinspired innovation has created a cultural divide that is stifling to the overall advancement of the approach for sustainable societies. This paper aims to advance the effectiveness of bioinspired innovation processes for positive benefits through interdisciplinary communication by exploring the epistemological assumptions in various fields that contribute to the discipline. We propose that there is a shift in epistemological assumptions within bioinspired innovation processes at the points where biological models derived from reductionist approaches are interpreted as socially-constructed design principles, which are then realized in practical settings wrought with complexity and multiplicity. This epistemological shift from one position to another frequently leaves practitioners with erroneous assumptions due to a naturalistic fallacy. Drawing on examples in biology, we provide three recommendations to improve the clarity of the dialogue amongst interdisciplinary teams. (1) The deliberate articulation of epistemological perspectives amongst team members. (2) The application of a gradient orientation towards sustainability instead of a dichotomous orientation. (3) Ongoing dialogue and further research to develop novel epistemological approaches towards the topic. Adopting these recommendations could further advance the effectiveness of bioinspired innovation processes to positively impact social and ecological systems.

Beyond Structure-Function: Getting at Sustainability within Biomimicry Pedagogy

“…and "How are you creating conditions conducive to life?" We also explicitly delineated the Nature and Society domains, creating space for students to address the social construction of challenges and subsequent applications of abstracted design principles [3,6], in our case using inclusive participatory design methodology.…”

“…and "How are you creating conditions conducive to life?" We also explicitly delineated the Nature and Society domains, creating space for students to address the social construction of challenges and subsequent applications of abstracted design principles [3,6], in our case using inclusive participatory design methodology. Naming and making the sustainability perspective (CCL) explicit and distinct made it more possible to indicate that just because a designer or design team was practicing one did not mean they were automatically practicing the other; that there are relative amounts of intention for and attention to each perspective in a given process.…”

“…Our interest lies with pedagogy for addressing sustainability within biomimicry practice. Biomimicry is an expansive multi-disciplinary design practice spanning nature to innovation: everything from insights into materials and mechanisms to systems and sustainability (for expediency, we treat biomimicry as synonymous with bioinspired design, biologically inspired design, or biomimetic design [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], although this is not in line with ISO 18458 [ 4 ]). While these possibilities exist, our teaching experience, like others’, suggests the practice tends towards insights around narrower natural forms [ 5 , 6 ].…”

“…While these possibilities exist, our teaching experience, like others’, suggests the practice tends towards insights around narrower natural forms [ 5 , 6 ]. Even though biomimicry affords the possibility to address sustainability [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 ], its current practice in various modes does not necessarily lead to doing so [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].…”

“…The difficulties associated with incorporating sustainability within biomimicry are numerous and varied [ 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. We overwhelmingly saw instructional examples, reports, and case studies of biomimicry applied at the product or product-technology scope, and at a scope that is too narrow to address sustainability broadly.…”